|Looking to work at Subway?|
The purpose is to weed out those who are deceptive in the hiring process. Those who are deceptive have a need to be deceptive and are the most likely to:
File fraudulent claims, steal, sow discord, bruise the reputation of the company and cause stress for all around them.
Statement Analysis gets to the truth including in ways where politicians have sought to limit the free flow of information in hiring. The significant disadvantage to employers by these restrictions are not enforced by most governments in their own hiring.
We weed out those who intend to push their religion upon others, or those who will be made indignant by those who do not agree with their political position...
before they are even offered an interview.
Employment Analysis is advanced analysis that goes well beyond deception detection. What we learn before offering someone an interview is often the guiding elements of the interview.
Companies which employ analysis in HR save money, stress and their own reputation. They hire the best and brightest from their pool of applicants and see improvement in sales and morale, as well as reduce turnover.
It is in the sub $15.00 per hour that we have the most turnover as well as the most frequent exploitation. Turnover means wasted hours of training and exploitation means payouts, insurance and legal fees on top of reputation protection.
Never Hire an Artist?
Lots of good employees have talents within art and in getting to know one another, the sharing of art can be fulfilling. We have our "statement analysis rules" that are seemingly "tongue in cheek" but are not. We don't discriminate against artists nor any other legal standard. It is in the analysis that we are given what to expect if hired.
I play guitar and if you did not agree that I am a good guitarist I will not resent you (I'll agree with you), nor despise you, nor seek to gain some form of redress for the perceived humiliation of you not liking my guitar playing. I separate guitar playing from me, personally, and my value in life.
We tell the truth and we document the truth.
In the years I have done this work, wherever I have represented a company, we have not lost a single case, from human rights to unemployment hearings.
Here are some samples:
Case Sample 1: 40 year old female applied for position and filled out Questionnaire. In it, she was asked to tell us about herself. This allows her to freely tell me (the analyst) why I should hire her. We go into the analysis with the same presupposition that we do in allegation based statements: The person is telling the truth. In Employment, we intend to hire the person unless she talks us out of it.
Questionnaire Analysis Conclusion: Applicant gave lots of red flags, including indication of experience with formal conflict. Of all the things she could have told us, she chose what was on her mind: filing complaints against others was in her language. Remember, our language reveals four things:
a. our background
b. our experiences
c. our priority
d. our personality traits
She showed a familiarity (experience) with conflict and the personality trait of "victim status", though she did not intend to disclose either.
I concluded that the applicant posed a high risk for exploitation. No interview recommended. This means that if hired, she will likely find a reason to be a "victim" and want money her hands have not earned. (exploitation). I also wrote that she is likely to be very talented at manipulation (often seen in the language of addiction) and if interviewed, the IR should be experienced.
Company Response: Strong disagreement with analysis and hired her. I later learned that she had worked for the company years earlier and had been terminated. The company figured it was easier to hire her than to incur the cost of training a new employee and disregarded the risk.
In less than one year, she filed a claim against the company, which was addressed to me. Then, she filed another.
"1 January, 2017 from the _____ Human Rights Commission.
Question 1: Mr. Hyatt, when did you learn that _______ __________ is _________ (sexual orientation) ?"
Answer: 1 January, 2017
Question 2: Mr. Hyatt, how did you learn that _____ _______ is _________ (sexual orientation)?"
Answer: I learned this information from your letter to me.
I told the truth and I documented. This is what good companies do. If someone is genuinely mistreated, good companies want to set things right. This was a fraudulent claim of discrimination.
She was not done there, however.
Case Sample 2 The same applicant filed another claim.
Letter from _______ Human Rights Commission, dated 1 April, 2017
"Mr. Hyatt, when did you learn that ______ __________ was diagnosed with _________ (mental health disorder)?
Answer; 1 April, 2017
"Mr. Hyatt, how did you learn that ______ _______ was diagnosed with _________?"
Answer: I learned this from your letter, dated 1 April, 2017
In the pre-interview Questionnaire, the applicant indicated that she would lie and she showed indication of prior involvement with fraudulent claims. Hence, the initial recommendation to not even interview her. Her conclusion showed "pragmatic view point of deception" rather than any signals of a tender conscience.
Case Sample 3 Child Abuse
Employment Analysis yields very sensitive information. When someone is asked to tell the company what they wish to know about themselves, statement analysis reveals information that is deeply personal.
In this case, the applicant revealed growing up severely abused in childhood and had much that was unresolved. She scored very low for honesty and very low for personal responsibility. The analysis showed that not only did she pose a high risk for exploitation but would impact morale and sales. Her distrust of men, in particular, was palpable. There were no indications of professional intervention in her language.
While employed, she had bizarre "OCD-like" behavior, including eating the same food every day, 7 days a week.
Question: Why would we care that she eats the same food every day?
Answer: Because she makes it everyone's business in the office. What she eats is secondary to the why she eats the same thing everyday: it is her identity. What did this translate into?
It did not take but a few months for her to first boast of her diet, and then criticize others who did not "see" her brilliance. From there, she began to rail on her co workers who did not recognize her the "health benefits" of eating the same food every day of her life as she criticized, day after day, what others ate. Co-workers ended up avoiding her, and sales reports showed poor results so further examination was made. They found decent results for female customers, atrocious results for male customers, including some customers who left the company after feeling insulted by her. Yet, the company feared terminating her because she presents as a victim which means she will file suit. At last account, sales continued to be poor and turnover continues due to her abrasiveness. The company knows she will file suit if they let her go.
For some, OCD like traits translates into efficiency, but not here. If the company had known of such early child hood abuse, they could have legally explored such in the interview process. For example,
"Here, you wrote that while growing up, you...this is fascinating!" and let the person talk. This would allow the professional to learn if the early childhood abuse has been processed and dealt with, or if it will interfere with the material needs of the company.
We care not for one who prefers to eat meat or not eat meat, but when it becomes "virtue signaling", it will translate to trouble. For such, to disagree with the Vegan is not to disagree with his diet, but in his understanding, it is a personal condemnation of self.
For him, the "humiliation" of disagreement will fill him with resolve to not only file some form of suit or complaint but to smear the company, via social media, with false claims, especially when if the suit fails to extort money from the company.
Creativity can have a cost. Some with artistic ability lose touch with reality. Some examples:
An actor plays pretend tough guy roles and so in life, he begins to act tough. They end up believing their own hype.
Another plays a role of a United Nations diplomat and uses the fame to get politicians to appoint as such, in spite of having no qualifications.
Bob Hope was said to throw his servants paychecks on the floor to watch them crawl over small amounts.
Comedians are well known for severe depression and substance abuse, while projecting a happy-go-lucky funny guy persona.
We saw the "women's rights march" led by a woman who advocates for female genital mutilation among other things. Another condemned inappropriate language by using far worse inappropriate language.
Bruce Springsteen is hailed as the "working class spokesman" while he said he never held a job even as a teen. He lives in mansions while singing songs about factories and how the guy in the "mansion" has lost touch.
Recently, at age 70, he announced himself as the "leader of the Resistance Movement" echoing the brave French underground military resistance movement against Nazi occupation. When he was 18, he claimed "mental illness" via "same sex attraction" to avoid the draft. He recently condemned President Trump as a "classic narcissist" forgetting, perhaps, that he himself disclosed that he diagnosed as a classic narcissist. I enjoy his music while ignoring his politics.
Sean Penn went down south to "rescue blacks" because, he said, President Bush was trying to kill them all via a storm because "he hates black people. " His rescue boat had to be abandoned. It was sinking under the weight of all his cameras and film crew.
Robert DeNiro on Monday practiced monkey faces in the mirror at his home. On Tuesday, he gave a vulgar rant about those who did not agree with his voting choice.
Shia LaBeouf had a small band of followers who chanted the same words in front of a camera day and night. He may have mental illness or he may be self promoting but what of all the young people who went at all hours of the day and night and chanted "he will not divide us; he will not divide us" while dividing people? He was eventually arrested.
These are celebrities which young people often emulate today.
They have to apply for jobs at some point in life. Their self loathing aside, eventually, they will have to get jobs.
It is not that someone with talent should not be hired: it is one who identifies as an artist while applying for a job that is the signal of trouble to come. This is repeated regularly:
The "artist" is frustrated into having to get a "regular" job. It is not that the applicant is good, for example, at painting. It is that her identity and self worth is within painting. It is not her "talent", it is "who she is" instead. This may be all well and good as long as her co workers and customers recognize her talent. Should one disagree with her, it is not that they do not like or appreciate the painting. That is not what she "hears." She heard rejection of self.
This can fill the one with resolve to not get revenge, but to justify self.
Contrarians like to say "I am not a yes man." Being unnecessary, this is a signal, if given in an open statement during the hiring process, that the person is going to disagree for the sake of disagreement and trouble superiors. The issue is not important to the contrarian, it is the self inflated value of one's own opinion that matters. If this is not recognized by others, it will lead to trouble in the work place.
Social Justice Warriors:
SJW show their moral narcissism in the Questionnaire and it is only a matter of time before the trouble begins.
Like the contrarian, the SJW is not so much concerned about the issue at hand. It only appears this way to the untrained. Let's say "racism" is the cause of the SJW. The social justice warrior says he wants to fight "racism." This is not a problem. Bringing the "fight" to the workplace, where he should be making widgets, is a problem.
The racism is actually secondary to the view of self. He or she may rant about perceived racism but it is his own opinion that is paramount that he shows in the analysis, not the cause.
The SJW has an acute need to be declared morally superior to others.
Q, How is one declared morally superior to others?
A. By demonizing others.
Q. How does this take place at the work place?
A. Step by step:
a. declaration of position, often in friendly, water cooler talk. The moral narcissist is seeking to learn who agrees with him, but more importantly, who does not. Dependent upon the size of the company this will not take long.
b. disagreement with others; which is what he was seeking in the first place. Who are those who disagree with him? It is not just someone who does not see it his way, it is often someone disinterested in the discussion at the work place. This is an affront to the moral narcissist. Here is how:
If one says, "hey I don't think we should be talking politics at work", the moral narcissist hears the inherent condemnation which says, "you are wrong to engage in this here!" The response is often, "this is not politics, man, this is human life we are talking about!" This condemnation gives temporary satisfaction to the moral narcissist at the work place because it allows him to move to the next stage:
c. demonization of others. This is where his "morality" is now separated and distanced from "the others." He is now "special" and "unique" and feels best at portraying opposition as "phobic and hateful." This classification of disagreement of those who disagree as "bad people" does not remain, but moves to:
d. attack of others
The attack often comes in areas unrelated to his cause. This is the passive-aggressive response we see when the moral narcissist now allows a report to be a bit late, frustrating the one he labeled "phobic and hateful." The attack is assimilated through the moral narcissist's intellect: the stronger the intellect, the more subtle the attacks.
Eventually, it will come to the surface:
e. complaint of "hostile work environment" which goes from vocal (to the supervisor) to the demand for redress (write ups, correction, etc). Since the rejection of the belief is a rejection of self to the moral narcissist:
f. outlet for the perceived humiliation: violence? suit? projection upon subordinates?
It is often predicted by the Questionnaire itself, successfully.
We see today the seeds of civil war germinating in our nation. Where we used to agree to disagree, especially in the work place, we now see the following:
"You did not vote for the same politician that I did. I will no longer speak with you."
Families torn apart by the moral narcissist. Why?
It is not due to disagreement in policy. If this was the case, there would be healthy debate.
The condemnation is this: "You are morally depraved (hate) and mentally ill (phobia) for not agreeing with me. "
It is going to exact a toll on the company.
The moral narcissist will produce this in the language to the trained ear when applying for a job. Consider the context: the applicant is attempting to control himself or herself, and present the best possible candidate, yet still cannot help but "virtue signal" which leads to the condemnation of others. "Others" is:
co workers, supervisors, managers, and customers.
They create an "us versus them" triangulation and if the "insult" of not agreeing with her is not remedied, the moral narcissist poses a very high risk of filing a fraudulent claim of discrimination.
The applicant should be telling us about how she likes to work hard, learn new things and how she enjoys working with the public. She may mention art, which is acceptable, but if the number of words dedicated to art (or social justice, or politics, or religion, or...) outnumbers the words about work attributes, the company is going to experience trouble.
Willingness to Lie
Remember, as main stream media holds no embarrassment for lying, neither does the moral narcissist. They will lie on the job application and they will lie under oath. This comes from the inner need of "superiority." Recently the weather forecasters conspired to not tell the truth about the "record setting blizzard" because they knew better than the public did about safety.
As college kids protest "fascism" by being fascists, resorting to violence and shout downs of free speech, they are then, (at least eventually) applying for jobs.
The analysis of their applications shows their intentions and attitude: they hold the expectation that the company will meet their emotional needs.
What happens the first week of employment when they learn that someone does not hold the same view that they were willing to inflict violence over?
What happens when there is no "safe space" to coddle them?
What happens when they have been tutored and under the influence that deception is a legitimate tool if you have the "moral high ground"?
Employers do not want any of this nonsense. They want productivity because productivity, not the government, gives job security.
Whereas we once disagreed in politics, but agreed that politics and religion do not do well in the work place, the civil standards do not apply to those who identify their very being with their opinion.
An artist in need of work will use the employment process to persuade the company to hire him or her by calling attention to work attributes, not demand, instead, recognition for being an artist.
Those who approach companies with illicit motive will signal this in the language. It is so important to them that it will find its way into their words.
Hire the best and brightest from the pool of applicants by weeding out the deceptive and discerning those with the intention of bringing trouble to the work place.
Hyatt Analysis Services offers employment analysis on a sub-contract basis. We guarantee that the company will realize significant savings in the first year. Dependent upon the size of the company and the turn-over, the cost of working with us may save multiples of it alone. We also have analysts available to work with companies on larger contracts.
Should a company have a suit filed against them, we intervene from the beginning to protect the company from fraud.
We train companies in seminars or Human Resource professionals can receive the training individually, at home.
Due to the advanced nature of Employment Analysis the "Complete Statement Analysis Course" must be successfully completed. While this work is being done, we work with the company to develop its own tailored Questionnaire fitting for both their company and the position applied for.
This will save on insurance costs, legal fees, pay outs, and turn over, while protecting a company's reputation.
Never hire a _____________ (fill in the blank). Hire workers that reveal honesty, a tender conscience and a desire to earn money.